Cited by 46Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMachine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Crossing the chasm from model performance to clinical impact: the need to improve implementation and evaluation of AI

Open access
Marwaha, Jayson S., Kvedar, Joseph C.·2022·npj Digital Medicine

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been the subject of considerable interest for many years for its potential to improve clinical care—yet its actual impact on patient outcomes when deployed in clinical settings remains largely unknown. In a recent systematic review by Zhou et al. 1 , the authors surprisingly show that its impact so far has been quite limited. They reviewed 65 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating AI-based clinical interventions and found that there was no clinical benefit of using AI prediction tools compared to the standard of care in nearly 40% of studies. Among a subset of trials that the authors identified as having a low risk of bias, the clinical benefit of using deep learning (DL) predictive models over traditional statistical (TS) risk calculators was only minimal, and there was no benefit in using machine learning (ML) models over TS tools. Somewhat counterintuitively, most of the AI tools in these trials exhibited an excellent area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC; a common performance metric for predictive models) during development (median AUROC 0.81, IQR 0.75–0.90) and validation (median AUROC 0.83, IQR 0.79–0.97): a humbling reminder that robust predictive utility does not guarantee clinical impact at the bedside. As the science of building accurate predictive models progresses, our ability to translate these advancements into real-world clinical utility remains comparatively limited. How can we bridge this gap between AUROCs and clinical benefit?

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41746-022-00572-2

Cites

9 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This requires the user to figure out how to combine the results of individual evaluations for decision-making-an unfilled gap commonly described as the 'AI Chasm'.

    “This requires the user to figure out how to combine the results of individual evaluations for decision-making-an unfilled gap commonly described as the 'AI Chasm' 8 .”

    From Standing on FURM Ground: A Framework for Evaluating Fair, Useful, and Reliable AI Models in Health Care Systems (2024) · cites this paper as [8]

    The paper’s title and its 'Building out the implementation science of AI' section describe a gap between model performance and clinical impact, including the unresolved challenge of incorporating predictions into care decisions (page not available). It does not describe that gap as users combining the results of individual evaluations, or establish 'AI Chasm' as a commonly used term. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marwaha, J. S., & Kvedar, J. C.
Affiliations
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Marwaha, Jayson S.
Venue
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2022-03-03
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
25-25
ISSN
2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4214874725
Cited by
46
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 6
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | U.S. National Library of Medicine (T15LM007092)
  • Harvard University (Biomedical Informatics and Data Science Research Training (BIRT) Program)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
clinical implementation of AI, AI implementation, prediction model performance, machine learning prediction tool

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review